While most of the world is recovering economically, the US continues to flounder. Greece is highly unionized. Result? Chaos.

Is that our trial canary? We know that tax cuts work. Please feel to help with informative / shocking links regarding economics, government budgeting, what triggered the meltdown, Obama-nomics, and/or Greece.

Unsustainable Spending [Real Clear Politics]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2456202/posts
A spectre is haunting Europe, and America — the spectre of Keynesianism finally gone nuts. ... Little things, such as the heart of the U.S. space program, are being gutted to make way for metastasizing social security entitlements and debt service payments that will soon swamp the entire federal budget — thus requiring the elimination of more little things such as the army, navy and air force. ...[snip]

The [2008 Financial] Meltdown Orchestrated?http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2430464/posts
“Sure, it could be pure coincidence that exactly at 11 a.m. a wave of concerned investors all decided it was time to electronically withdraw their funds thus creating this crescendo drawdown effect setting in motion a worldwide panic. It could be coincidence. But, its doubtful. The fact that the identities of those who simultaneously decided to withdraw their money at 11 a.m. on Sep. 18, precipitating this panic, were never released, does lead one to question whether or not something sinister was at work.”

Barney Frank gets clarity. Finallyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2441738/posts
WASHINGTON - Barney Frank has been one of the staunchest defenders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their mission to increase access to affordable housing. Now hes helping to lead the charge to dismantle the troubled mortgage giants.
[Would that be because of Paulson’s book now revealing the Russia/China negotiations to sabotage our economy?]

Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:03:27 AM by Halfmanhalfamazing

RUSH: I want you to listen to this, Paul Kanjorski. He’s a Democrat member of Congress from Pennsylvania. He was on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal on January 27th.

KANJORSKI: On Thursday at about 11 o’clock in the morning —

RUSH: Stop the tape a second. Go back and recue this. He’s talking about September the 18th here. Let me tease you even further. September the 18th is the day last year that the world economy almost came to an end. Don’t smirk. It’s true, Snerdley. That’s what Kanjorski is saying. So he’s talking here about Thursday, September the 18th.

KANJORSKI: On Thursday at about 11 o’clock in the morning the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help. It pumped $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide; we were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there.

RUSH: Do you remember this? This is the day I think that the Atlanta banks ran out of one-hundred-dollar bills. But now stop and think of this: A $550 billion withdrawal from money market funds in one-to-two hours. I am convinced — and there’s one more sound bite to go here — I am convinced that this is what they took to the White House and said to President Bush, “We have got a disaster, you have got to get on board with a bailout,” which came later on in October, “you’ve got to get on board with this $700 billion, the TARP 1,” all because 550 — now, what precipitated this? Here’s the second Kanjorski sound bite.

KANJORSKI: If they had not done that, their estimation was that by two o’clock that afternoon, five-and-a-half trillion dollars would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it. We’re really no better off today than we were three months ago because we’ve had a decrease in the equity positions of banks because other assets are going sour by the moment.

RUSH: Now, this is January 27th, Kanjorski is talking about this, and we have to allow, since Kanjorski is a Democrat he’s part of the Pelosi team, we have to allow that some of his comment here is being flavored. When he ends up saying we’re no better off today than we were three months ago, some of this is obviously oriented toward panic and getting people to go along with the bailout today, but let’s leave that aside because that’s traditional Democrat Party politics. If they had not done that, if that $550 billion-dollar withdrawal in an hour or two had not been stopped, if they hadn’t closed the windows, he says that five-and-a-half trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States. Now, when I hear money market I think of savings accounts, higher interest rates than passbook savings at the old downtown building and loan where people park their money temporarily ‘til they decide where to put it permanently. He says five-and-a-half trillion would have vanished from the banking system, would have collapsed the entire economy of the US and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.

Now, we’ve gotta allow here for some exaggeration. It’s amazing this was said on C-SPAN on Thursday, January 27th, and nobody picked up on it. We got it from a website called LiveLeak. They were rummaging through things, and they found this. Now, let’s assume for a second here that elements of this are true. Let’s assume that there was a $550 billion run, electronic run on the banks and money market accounts in one to two hours. The question is who was doing this? Who was withdrawing all this money? And the next question is why? That’s where my mind starts exploding, and this is dangerous to have these explosions going this way. Could it have been George Soros? Could it have been a consortium of countries — Russia, China, Venezuela — countries that are eager to have Barack Obama elected because they know that will make it easier for them to continue their own foreign policies in the world? In the meantime, five-and-a-half billion dollars in one to two hours, that can probably be confirmed. The five-and-a-half trillion is speculation based on the rate at which money was coming out. We could check that the Fed stopped the trading windows, they closed the window. We do know they were pumping money into the system left and right. And remember when the Federal Reserve loaned elements, $2 trillion and we weren’t told who got the money? And we still haven’t been told who got the money.

We know that last fall, the Federal Reserve lent $2 trillion to somebody or a series of somebodies, and we still don’t know where it went. We know last year that we had a crisis on our hands and everybody was saying if we didn’t do this today the country was finished and they got Bush on board, they got Paulson on board. Obviously this kind of news, if somebody from the Fed shows up and Bernanke and Paulson say, “Hey, we got a chance here of losing five-and-a-half trillion dollars if we don’t do something,” I mean that’s gotta scare anybody into some sort of action to stem the tide. RUSH: We have an AP-Obama story here that targets the date of this run on money market accounts to September 16th. It was Kanjorski on C-SPAN on January 27th, said it was Thursday the 18th. Here’s the AP story: “A money-market mutual fund that ‘broke the buck’ amid a rush of orders to pull out cash has begun returning an initial $26 billion to investors who had been unable to access their money for more than a month. ... On Sept. 16, the rapid sell-off of assets caused the value of fund assets to fall to 97 cents for each investor dollar put in — the first instance in 14 years of a money-market mutual fund ‘breaking the buck,’ or having its per-share value fall below $1. Reserve Management froze redemption orders. That led institutional investors to pull out cash...” I think both dates are right. September 16th, the rapid sell-off begins and “[t]hat led institutional investors to pull out cash from that fund and others, creating fears about the safety of the $3.4 trillion in assets held in money-market funds, and a new temporary government money fund guarantee program.’” It’s sort of just a casual, hey, no-big-deal kind of story from the Associated Press — and here again is Kanjorski talking about this. Let’s go back to these two sound bites, Paul Kanjorski (Democrat-Pennsylvania) on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal on January 27th.

KANJORSKI: On Thursday at about 11 o’clock in the morning, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to the tune of $550 billion was like being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help. They pumped $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide; we were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there.

RUSH: By the way, I should tell you that Kanjorski’s source for this is none other than Bernanke — Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve — and the Treasury secretary, Hank Paulson. They are the two figures that told members of Congress what was going on with this initial run of $550 billion, an electronic run on the banks, money market accounts, investor accounts here. He goes on to say this, if they had not stepped in to stop this, if they had not closed the window...

KANJORSKI: If they had not done that, their estimation was that by two o’clock that afternoon, $5-1/2 trillion dollars would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it. We’re really no better off today than we were three months because we had a decrease in the equity positions of banks because other assets are going sour by the moment.

RUSH: So the last part, I think that’s just salesmanship for doing something now to get the stimulus bill passed, although Kanjorski is among some Democrats starting to shift to the cant that more time is needed to make a correct decision this time; which I think is one of the reasons Geithner postponed his announcement to today from last week or even today. So, you know, I have been suspicious of all this that happened last fall. It just seemed too perfectly timed. Now we know that these are not individual money market accounts like you would have had to withdraw your money. This is money invested in a mutual fund money market account. So it is quite possible somebody could have started a run on this thing and the word spread, and it did — and the $550 billion withdrawal in one hour would panic anybody. So there’s so much to this. You know, it’s always the case that there’s so much more going on in all this that we don’t know. The Drive-By Media, any longer, is worthless in ferreting out the truth involved in events. They totally exist on the surface. They exist with a path of least resistance particularly with Democrats in power, because with the presumption that Democrats could abuse power or commit ethics violations just doesn’t even cross the radar. It doesn’t even show up on the radar. It’s not possible for Democrats to behave in that fashion, and so all this stuff goes on below the surface and we find out about it much later after the fact.

The only difference between the U.S. under Obama and Greece is that the U.S. has a much stronger economy and it is more difficult to destroy. It is like the difference between punching holes in the hull of a row boat and punching holes in the hull of an ocean liner.

More than two-thirds of the mortgages in 2004 were resold to some other financial institution, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two government-sponsored enterprises bought more than one-third of all the mortgages in the nation that were resold by the original lenders. P.3

The interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage was about 8 percent in 1973, 18 percent in 1981, and 6 percent in 2005. — P.6

An international study of urban areas around the world with “severely unaffordable” housing likewise found that 23 out of 26 such areas had strong “smart growth” policies. ...As a former governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand put it, “the affordability of housing is overwhelmingly a function of just one thing, the extent to which governments place artificial restrictions on the supply of residential land. — P.13

A study of housing prices across the nation concluded:

[”Growth management” artifically doubles the cost of a home in the name of “smart growth”. Here are Sowell’s specifics]

Today, a family in an American city without growth management planning can buy a very nice “middle manager’s” home with about 2,200 square feet, four bedrooms, two-and-one-half baths, and a two-car garage, for $150,000 to $200,000. In cities than have had growth-management planning for ten to fifteen years, that same home costs $300,000 to $400,000. In cities that have had it for twenty-five years or more, the same house costs from $500,000 to as much as $1.5 million. — P.14-15

Refinancing grew “ten-fold during the housing boom, rising from $26 billion in 2000 to $318 billion in 2006. As of 2006, 86 percent of all home mortgage refinances were “cash-out” refinances.” — P.23

Equity dropped. Average equity in a home, which was 86 percent of its value back in 1945, was just 55 percent of its value in 2003. — P.23

Advocates of “affordable housing” seldom — if ever — seek to remove government restrictions that have led to higher housing prices. Instead, they seek various ways of either forcing the private sector to charge lower home prices and apartment rents, or else they seek to use the taxpayers’ money to subsidize housing in one way or another. — P.35

In 2002, the George W. Bush administration urged Congress to pass the American Dream Downpayment Act, which subsidized the down payments of prospective home buyers whose incomes were below a certain level. After passage of that Act, the president also urged Congress to pass legislation permitting the Federal Housing Administration to being making zero-down-payment loans at low interest rates to low-income Americans. In 2004, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher said, “the White House doesn’t think those who can afford the monthly payment but have been unable to save for a down payment should be deprived from owning a home.” He added, “We do not anticipate any costs to taxpayers.” Who, if not the taxpayers, would pay for these government subsides — much less the defaults from riskier loans — was not revealed. — P.41-42

As far away as London, the distinguished British magazine The Economist in 2003 reiterated a warning it had made before, that “house prices would fall by 10% in America over the next four years,” though it acknowledged that many of its readers “reject our gloomy warnings.” In reality, American house prices fell sooner and more steeply. By 2005, The Economist repeated their warnings yet again, but more urgently: “America’s house prices have reached dangerous levels” and added: “The whole world economy is at risk.” In 2003, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snow asked Congress to “enact legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, because of his concerns about the risks they were taking. Two years later, testifying before the same Congressional committee, he returned to the same theme, citing the “systematic risk”... p.45

A 2004 article in Fortune magazine also warned of housing speculation that “is rapidly losing touch with reality” and of the risks created by the growing practice of borrowing against the equity of one’s home. It warned that “there’s a real danger that a downturn in prices, or even a stall, could slam the economy, especially all-important consumer spending. Americans have used their homes like ATMs, taking out $662 billion in home-equity loans and refinancings since 2001.” — P.46

In 2005, resident scholar Peter J. Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank, warned that, if Congress did not rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, “there will be a massive default with huge losses to the taxpayers and systemic effects on the economy.” — P.46

In June 2004, in response to President Bush’s expressed concerns about the riskiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, seventy-six Democrats in the House of Representatives sent him a letter defending these government-sponsored enterprises, and against making the case that “an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing.” These 76 house members included such prominent individuals as Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel. — P.51-52

Congressional support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went far beyond words. When the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight — the agency overseeing these government-sponsored enterprises — turned up irregularities in Fannie Mae’s accounting and in 2004 issued what Barron’s magazine called “a blistering 211-page report,” Republican Senator Kit Bond called for an investigation of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, tried to have their budget slashed, and sought to have the leadership of the regulatory agency removed. Democratic Congressman Barney Frank likewise declared: “It is clear that a leadership change at OFHEO is overdue.” — P.53

The development of lax lending standards, both by banks and by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac standing behind the banks, came not from a lack of government regulation and oversight, but precisely as a result of government regulation and oversight, directed toward the politically popular goal of more “home ownership” through “affordable housing,” especially for low-income buyers. — P.57

By 2007, about one-fourth of all adjustable rate mortgage loans, interest only loans and payment option loans were at least 60 days late on their mortgage payments. This was more than double the rate of payment delinquencies on conventional 30-year fixed-rate mortgages. — P.63

[Housing speculators]

Like other aspects of the housing markets, foreclosures on property owned by absentee owners were “much more common among defaults in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida — all states with particularly rapid price appreciation that attracted speculators.” — P.64

Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal called attention to “the striking fact” that much of the subprime crisis originated in particular areas in just four states. [lost page]

Professor Stanley Liebowitz of the University of Texas at Dallas put it: “From the current handwringing, you’d think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job.” Government was not passively inefficient. It was actively zealous in promoting risky mortgage lending practices. — P.68

Senator Christopher Dodd said: “I have a lot of questions about where the administration was over the last eight years.” Often the Bush administration had sought increased power to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during those years, which Senator Dodd fought adamantly against granting such powers. — P.72

In the wake of the housing bust, Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, as chairmen of the House and Senate committees most involved in the housing market — and long-time promoters of the very policies that led the housing boom and bust — were all over the media, where they were treated as experts, able to explain the problems and provide solutions. — P.75

[How leftist groups like EEOC, ACORN, and the ACLU fanned the meltdown fire through legal threats over housing discrimination.]

Moreover, the process costs of fighting a discrimination charge can be enormous, whether the charge is racial discrimination or sex discrimination. The Sears department store chain, for example, spent $20 million fighting a sex discrimination case for 15 years, even though the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that brought charges against Sears did not produce even one woman, either currently or previously employed in any of Sears’ hundreds of stores across the country, to claim that she personally had been discriminated against. — P.105

A study of housing costs, for example, found that land-use restrictions in the name of “smart-growth” policies had added costs of more than $100,000 per home in 50 metropolitan areas. In a community of just 10,000 families, that adds up to more than a billion dollars’ worth of extra housing costs loaded onto the people in such a small community, often on the basis of little more than some fashionable but unexamined phrases about “smart growth.” — P.114

More generally, what is called a “solution” in politics is often simply a patch put over problems caused by previous political “solutions,” which in turn were patches put over other political “solutions” before that. — P.123

Few things blind human beings to the actual consequences of what they are doing like a heady feeling of self-righteousness during a crusade to smite the wicked and rescue the downtrodden. — P.128

During all the previous history of the United States, when the federal government let the economy recover from downturns on its own, no depression was ever as deep or as long-lasting as the Great Depression of the 1930s. — P.134

Mortgages made under the Community Reinvestment Act were especially vulnerable during the housing downturn, to the detriment of both borrowers and lenders. For example, lending done under Community Reinvestment Act criteria, according to a quarterly report in October of 2008, constituted only 7 percent of the total mortgage lending by the Bank of America, but constituted 29 percent of its losses on mortgages. — P.66

[US housing compares well with other countries.]

For the country as a whole, however, home buyers have paid no more than the old fashioned standard of 25 percent of their incomes for housing in any year since 1985. Renters in recent years paid a somewhat higher percentage of their smaller incomes but not more than 20 percent in any year over the past several decades. Most housing in the United States unaffordable. The median-priced home in the United States as a whole is 3.6 times the median income of Americans. For Great Britain, the median-priced home is 5.5 times the median income and, in Australia and New Zealand, the ratio of home prices to income is 6.3 — P.33-34

Comments made years ago by distinguished British historian Paul Johnson remain very apt in our times:

The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false. — P.148

At ACORN, Talbott Was A Key Leader Of An Attempt By ACORN To Storm The Chicago City Council. “And what exactly was Talbott’s work with Acorn? Talbott turns out to have been a key leader of that attempt by Acorn to storm the Chicago City Council (during a living-wage debate). While Sol Stern mentions this story in passing, the details are worth a look: On July 31, 1997, six people were arrested as 200 Acorn protesters tried to storm the Chicago City Council session. According to the Chicago Daily Herald, Acorn demonstrators pushed over the metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session.” (Stanley Kurtz, “Inside Obama’s Acorn,” National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com, 5/29/08)

Talbott Justified Her Actions Of Storming The Meeting. “This was not an overreaction by frustrated followers who couldn’t get into a meeting (there were plenty of protestors already in the gallery), but almost certainly a deliberate bit of what radicals call ‘direct action,’ orchestrated by Acorn’s Madeleine [sic] Talbot [sic all]. As Talbot was led away handcuffed, charged with mob action and disorderly conduct, she explicitly justified her actions in storming the meeting.” (Stanley Kurtz, “Inside Obama’s Acorn,” National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com, 5/29/08)

Facts About Me and Barack
Stanley Kurtz On Obama And Madeline Talbott: “He had very close ties to Acorn and in particular to the head of Chicago Acorn. Her name was Madeline Talbot [sic all]. Madeline Talbot was an absolute pioneer of these intimidation tactics against banks, and Barack Obama was selected by Madeline Talbot when he was just sort of a wet behind the ears organizer. She recognized his abilities, and she asked him to train her personal staff. When he came back to Chicago from law school and Madeline Talbot was beginning her campaign against these banks, Barack Obama trained the leadership of organizers in Acorn in Chicago.” (Fox’s “Fox & Friends,” 9/30/08)

Talbott Hired Obama To Train Her ACORN Staff. “ACORN attracted Barack Obama in his youthful community organizing days. Madeline Talbott hired him to train her staff  the very people who would later descend on Chicago’s banks as CRA shakedown artists. The Democratic nominee later funneled money to the group through the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat, and through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, ditto. Obama was not just sympathetic  he was an ACORN fellow traveler.” (Mona Charen, “Guilty Party,” National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com, 9/30/08)

Talbott Spoke Up In Defense Of Obama After Some Claimed He Exaggerated His Accomplishments In Spearheading Asbestos Cleanup. “Some claim that Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, exaggerates his accomplishments in spearheading an asbestos cleanup at a low-income housing project. Speaking up in defense of Obama on the asbestos issue is Madeleine [sic] Talbot [sic all], who at the time was a leader at Chicago Acorn. Talbot, we learn, was so impressed by Obama’s organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff.” (Stanley Kurtz, “Inside Obama’s Acorn,” National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com, 5/29/08)

“’He Got People To Vote With Their Feet’ On The Issue, Organizer Madeleine [sic] Talbot [sic all] Said. At The Time, Talbot Worked At The Social Action Group ACORN And Initially Considered Obama A Competitor. But She Became So Impressed With His Work That She Invited Him To Help Train Her Staff.” (Letta Tayler and Keith Herbert, “Chicago’s Streets Obama’s Teacher,” [New York] Newsday, 3/2/08)
“This Was The Woman Who First Drew Obama Into His Alliance With ACORN, And Whose Staff Obama Helped Train.” (Stanley Kurtz, “Inside Obama’s Acorn,” National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com, 5/29/08)

Talbott Was Quoted Affirming ACORN’s Strong Ties To Obama. “[Obama has] ties to such radical groups as Chicago ACORN, whose lead organizer at the time, Madeline Talbott, practiced the sort of intimidating and often illegal ‘direct action’ that ACORN remains famous for. Talbott is quoted affirming that ‘Barack has proven himself among our members we accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer.’” (Stanley Kurtz, “True Believer,” National Review, 6/30/08)

Talbott On Obama: “He says things like, ‘Do you think we should do this? What role would you like to play?’ Everybody else just puts out an e-mail and says, ‘Y’all come.’ Barack doesn’t do that.” (Peter Slevin, “For Clinton And Obama, A Common Ideological Touchstone,” The Washington Post, 3/25/07)

At Two Charities, Obama Funneled Money To ACORN. “ACORN also got funding from two charities, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation, when Obama served on their boards, and from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - the radical ‘education reform’ outfit Obama ran from ‘95 to ‘99.” (”The Meltdown’s ACORN,” New York Post, 9/29/08)
My Donations and Bundling for Barack

Thank you for the quote. I remember George H. Bush [Senior] saying that Greenspan concealed the recovery in 1992, delaying recovery info that helped un-elect him. Tried for a while to google it. Tough to dig up.

“Feds Investigate Whether Hedge Funds Sank Euro ... of hedge funds that may have colluded to short-sell the euro, driving down its value and driving up their profits. Justice sent a letter to SAC, Greenlight, and Sorosamong othersthe ... and pushed other firms to join his in shorting the currency. ...”

I misfiled one link about Obama investigating Soros for Euro currency short selling shortly after Soros started mouthing off. Will look for that next. As for now ...

[Zero is focusing on our economy like a laser? Or a death ray?]
Efforts to reduce lead exposure will add costs to some home remodeling projectshttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2469464/posts?page=1
“You can bet that 1/3 of all renovation projects are going to be affected by this,” said Luke Garard, certified trainer with Titan Environmental Services.

Using Psychology To Save You From Yourself {0bamas plan for you “Behavioral Economics”}http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2473609/posts
Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s pick ... behavioral economics: the human “animal” is hard-wired to make errors ... people need “nudge”

In this 60 Minutes report, youll learn about a handful of Wall Street outsiders who realized the subprime mortgage business was a house of cards and found a way to bet against it. Michael Lewis talks about the current situation on Wall Street, the large bonuses still being paid and his predictions for the future of the industry.

Michael Lewis was also interviewed on Charlie Rose on March 16th. To see that video, please see this link.

The second video details the tactics employed by Lehman Brothers to effectively hide their crumbling financial status.

Id like to note that the 60 Minutes report was sponsored by Pfizer, and features a prominent ad for Lipitor off to the side of the Web page. Isn’t it interesting that one of the largest industries responsible for the collapse of the economy is sponsoring this?

This is the company that has distorted and manipulated the truth so that people will pay hundreds of dollars for worthless and dangerous drugs that in no way, shape or form address their health issue, yet they are hoodwinked into believing that if they don’t take them their life is at stake. [snip]

Thanks a Lot, JP Morgan Chasehttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2488101/posts
JPMorgan Chase instructed homeowners to stop making mortgage payments, as that was the only way to be considered for a loan modification, then repossessed their house when they followed the bank’s advice, a couple claims in Federal Court. “I’ve seen this happen to so many people,” their attorney said. [snip]

“At todays Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission hearing, Brooksley Born, the former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, declared Alan Greenspans tenure at the Federal Reserve an unmitigated failure  to his face. Greenspan accords a certain degree of respect on Capitol Hill, despite Borns accurate take on his many failures, and so this outburst was highly unusual  and gratifying.

Born, who pushed to strictly regulate derivatives under the Clinton Administration, but lost the battle to, among other people, Alan Greenspan, told the former Federal Reserve chair that his agency failed to prevent housing bubble, failed to prevent the predatory lending scandal, failed to prevent the activities that would bring the financial system to the verge of collapse.

You failed to prevent many of our banks from consolidating and growing to a size that are now too big or too interconnected to fail, Born added. She added that Greenspans views on deregulation, which he took as an article of faith, contributed to the Federal Reserves failure in delivering on its mandate.” [snip]

“..Born was particularly concerned about swaps, financial instruments that are traded over the counter between banks, insurance companies or other funds or companies, and thus have no transparency except to the two counterparties and the counterparties’ regulators, if any. CFTC regulation was strenuously opposed by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.[4] On May 7, 1998, former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt joined Rubin and Greenspan in objecting to the issuance of the CFTCs concept release. Their response dismissed Born’s concerns off-hand and focused on the possibility that CFTC regulation of swaps and other OTC derivative instruments would increase legal uncertainty of such instruments, potentially creating turmoil in the markets, and reducing the value of the instruments. Further concerns voiced were that the imposition of new regulatory costs would stifle innovation and push transactions offshore.[7]..”

HUD cries foul over illegal immigrant mortgage datahttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2101844/posts
Oldexpat posted: Whether it is 1m or 5m is irrelevant. No bank should have been giving mortgages to someone who could be deported any day. Makes no sense. All I know is we have a friend foreclosing on almost one house a day in Orange Co. CA.

On Thursday Sept 15, 2008 at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a ....
Did they notice Sep 15, 2008 was a Monday?

Investors were rushing out of these [Treasury and Federal Reserve] funds$105 billion out of $1.8 trillion on Thursday alonewhich in turn caused the funds to redeem their commercial paper investments.

How do you redeem commercial paper?

On Thursday at about 11 oclock in the morning the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two.

How would the Fed notice people making withdrawal requests from their money market accounts?

Nearly $3 trillion travels thru the Fedwire system every day. How would they even notice?

The Treasury opened up its window to help. It pumped $105 billion in the system

The Treasury doesn’t have a “window”.

The Federal Reserve does. You’d think something this important wouldn’t get confused like that.

and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide; we were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation,

Close what operation?

close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldnt be further panic out there.

Who decided to “close down the money accounts”?

The $550 Billion withdrawn in an hour or two that Rep. Kanjorski refers to in his statement has never been independently confirmed or refuted.

Interesting point. I’m out of my league here, but as I understand it, banks are given secret membership in the Federal Reserve. There’s a lot of secrecy about it. Based on the way Greenspan propped up Goldeman Sachs, there’s a good guess about an important member.

[Goldman Sachs was heavily invested in China in the late 90s. Paul Weyrich’s America Voice/NET had an expose, Red Chips, that caused Chinese investments to plummet, and Greenspan propped up Sachs.

‘Who decided to “close down the money accounts”?’

Once again, secrecy. Secret control and manipulation by a government run entity, all started by FDR’s banking regulations.

“The $550 Billion withdrawn in an hour or two that Rep. Kanjorski refers to in his statement has never been independently confirmed or refuted.”

He’s not the only one. Paulson talked about it himself. I posted several links about Paulson on this thread. He is convinced that Russia and China orchestrated the meltdown, and the timing is highly suspicious.

If Soros were involved, Obama gave him a payoff with Brazilian oil. Goldman Sachs received payoffs.

George Washington: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a terrible master.”

Here’s the the problem with government power in the nutshell — corrupt people gravitate toward easy money. Right now, the easy money is found through D.C. mispending tax money and misusing Federal power [such as Kelo]. It’s really that simple. Honest money is earned in the private sector. You have to work for that. No, not completely honest — but the buyer is a better caretaker of his wealth than the government ever will be.

Government control can appear helpful if good leaders are in charge. But good leaders are precious few. Ambition comes mainly from selfish desires. The best leaders of government don’t even want the job. Example — George Washington. They wanted to make him king. He didn’t want it. He resigned after eight years of president. Seeking no perks, he hated the job.

Contrast that with FDR, Bill Clinton, and Obama.

FDR was the only president who to remain in power beyond eight years. He wanted the job. How did he lead? Ham fisted government control. What was the result? Perks to cronies, more centralized government power, and a lenghtened, deepened recession.

Destruction of the US court system through a threat to pack the courts. An amendment DEMANDING that presidents must step down after eight years, and also amending the Constitution to prevent more than nine justices — the closest thing to a Magna Carta on Prince John we have had to date.

Bill Clinton — not satisfied with eight years, sought to make wife president. Tireless work. Ramped up risky loans which led to the 08 Meltdown. Sought to regulate firearms. Escalante Land Grab which barred us from cheap, clean burning coal. Payoffs from China. Nukes to China for campaign cash. Corruption that made him cowtow to Islamic fanatics for oil, a weakness that led to 9-11. Took control of national media, leading to massive misinformation to voters. Desired gatekeeper of internet to stop “lies” about a tax funded mistress.

Counterpoint can be found by FactCheck, which I told is run by Annenberg [who supports America-hating terrorist Bill Ayers and tweaked the vetting of Obama]

As for Goldman Sachs, it’s a sleazy firm from the word “go”. They have made out like bandits since the meltdown. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to guess they knew it was coming and planned accordingly.

Wall Street’s Bailout Hustlehttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2456899/posts
On January 21st, Lloyd Blankfein left a peculiar voicemail message on the work phones of his employees at Goldman Sachs. Fast becoming America’s pre-eminent Marvel Comics supervillain, the CEO used the call to deploy his secret weapon: a pair of giant, nuclear-powered testicles. In his message, Blankfein addressed his plan to pay out gigantic year-end bonuses amid widespread controversy over Goldman’s role in precipitating the global financial crisis. The bank had already set aside a tidy $16.2 billion for salaries and bonuses — meaning that Goldman employees were each set to take home an average of $498,246, a number roughly...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2451036/posts
Wall St. Helped Greece to Mask Debt Fueling Europe’s Crisis ...50 posts - 22 authors - Last post: Feb 14
Der Spiegel: How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt .... to understand that all of this stimulus money and public spending has to be paid back. ... a bad name by labeling the array of shenanigans as Crony Capitalism. .... Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the ...

The Great American Bubble Machine how Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulationhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2451220/posts
‘The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling...

Simon Johnson: Goldman Is About To Be Blacklisted And Possibly Banned In Europehttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2452042/posts
Simon Johnson: Goldman Is About To Be Blacklisted And Possibly Banned In Europe Joe Weisenthal Feb. 15, 2010, 6:45 AM MIT professor Simon Johnson raises some provocative scenarios in regards to Goldman’s participation in Greece’s scheme to obfuscate its debt levels. In particular, he expects a full audit of the company, and perhaps some kind of ban: If the Federal Reserve were an effective supervisor, it would have the political will sufficient to determine that Goldman Sachs has not been acting in accordance with its banking license. But any meaningful action from this direction seems unlikely. Instead, Goldman will probably...

Federal Reserve Bank of New York Subpoenaed in AIGhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2448855/posts
Heres the latest in the question of the New York Fed, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and the AIG bailout, as weve covered here at Big Government before (here and here). Last year, Iraq war vet Kevin Murray brought a lawsuit against the Treasury Department and Ben Bernanke (Murray vs. Geithner, et al) for its acquisition of AIG a scheme that made the US taxpayer the worlds largest provider of Shariah-compliant insurance products. Lawyers David Yerushalmi and The Thomas More Law Centers Robert Muise found, in the course of discovery, that that was just the tip of the iceberg. Yerushalmi and...

Testy Conflict With Goldman Helped Push A.I.G. to Edgehttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2446130/posts
Billions of dollars were at stake when 21 executives of Goldman Sachs and the American International Group convened a conference call on Jan. 28, 2008, to try to resolve a rancorous dispute that had been escalating for months. A.I.G. had long insured complex mortgage securities owned by Goldman and other firms against possible defaults. With the housing crisis deepening, A.I.G., once the worlds biggest insurer, had already paid Goldman $2 billion to cover losses the bank said it might suffer. A.I.G. executives wanted some of its money back, insisting that Goldman  like a homeowner overestimating the damages in a...

Ann Coulter: OBAMA’S OWNED — YOU CAN BANK ON IT (Bought and Paid for)http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2448703/posts
OBAMA’S OWNED — YOU CAN BANK ON ITFebruary 10, 2010 The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are bristling with the news that Republicans have decided now is the time to suck up to Wall Street. As the saying goes, there is no truer friend than a Wall Street arbitrageur — they are the salt-of-the-earth, the most loyal men who ever drew a breath! What are Republicans thinking? While not every money-manipulator on Wall Street deserves to be treated like a heroin dealer, lots do. Could the Republicans be a little more discriminating in picking up the Democrats’...

“The slide toward financial panic would have begun with a flutter of pages off a fax machine in Greenwich, Conn., each a notice of foreclosure. The instant that Long-Term Capital Management missed a payment to a creditor, it would technically have been in default to all of its roughly 75 creditors, thanks to loan provisions that required it to remain current on all its debts. Facing losses, those creditors would have sold assets that the firm had pledged as collateral, sending prices plunging. Dozens of markets, from Denmark to Brazil, would have bucked like terrified stallions. The selling frenzy would have roiled American markets in junk bonds, corporate takeover stocks, mortgage securities and even Treasury bonds. Businesses that depend on those markets for money to expand and add jobs would have suffered. So would consumers whose mortgage rates are influenced by those markets and who have billions in retirement savings in them. Fears of such a financial panic and its economic aftershocks prompted the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to help arrange an 11th-hour rescue of the fund by 14 Wall Street banks and brokerage firms in September... Top executives of banks and brokerage firms estimate privately that the collapse of Long-Term Capital alone could have cost their businesses a total of $8 billion to $15 billion, and one senior executive said he believed that the amounts could have been 10 times higher in a market stampede. “It would have turned a machine gun on the Street,” he said.” (Diana B. Henriques, Back From The Brink, New York Times, Dec 6, 1998).

The near-collapse of Long-Term Capital Management in October 1998 led to a $3.5 billion emergency bail-out organised by the New York Federal Reserve. Fourteen investment banks, including Goldman Sachs Group and Merrill Lynch, saved themselves by providing a $3.5 billion cushion to support LTCM while it was dismantled. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan cut interest rates to revive world markets. (Irish Times, Nov 26, 1999, p. 58).

Under the terms of the LTCM bail-out, the fund managers had to wait until 90% of the money was repaid before starting a new fund. William McDonough, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, was quoted as saying that “I don’t think we quite said they were criminally stupid, but if you have any ability to read between the lines, it was there,” and in regards to LTCM staying in business, McDonough said, “If they continue in business at all it will be by another name, and they may not be in business at all, never mind by another name. I can assure you that is a result that pleases me considerably.” (Houston Chronicle, Oct 2, 1999, p. 2).

“Lawyers from the 14 financial institutions that bailed out Long-Term Capital Management in September have discussed how far they should comply with a request from the US General Accounting Office for detailed information on the events surrounding the rescue of the hedge fund. The GAO has been asked to report on the LTCM issue by Congress, which is considering whether there is a need for new legislation to regulate either hedge funds or the financial intermediaries whose lending activities allowed LTCM to build up massive exposure. It wrote to lawyers for the institutions, which include Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, several weeks ago, asking for detailed information and analysis on issues such as the role of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in co-ordinating the rescue, and the need for further regulatory action.” (Financial Times (London), June 22, 1999, p. 1).

GAO report: “GAO noted that: (1) LTCM was able to establish leveraged trading positions of a size that posed potential systemic risk, primarily because the banks and securities and futures firms that were its creditors and counterparties failed to enforce their own risk management standards; (2) other market participants and federal regulators relied upon these large banks and securities and futures firms to follow sound risk management practices in providing LTCM credit; (3) however, weaknesses in the risk management practices of these creditors and counterparties allowed LTCM’s size and use of leverage to grow unrestrained; (4) the effects of these weaknesses became apparent during the unsettled market conditions that occurred in the summer of 1998; (5) LTCM began to lose large amounts of money in various trading positions worldwide and by mid-September was on the verge of failure; (6) the Federal Reserve facilitated a private sector recapitalization of LTCM because of concerns that a rapid liquidation of LTCM’s trading positions and related positions of other market participants in already highly volatile markets might cause extreme price movements and cause some markets to temporarily cease functioning; (7) although regulators were aware of the potential systemic risk that hedge funds can pose to markets and the perils of declining credit standards, until LTCM’s near-collapse, they said they believed that creditors and counterparties were appropriately constraining hedge funds’ leverage and risk-taking; (8) however, examinations done after LTCM’s near-collapse revealed weaknesses in credit risk management by banks and broker-dealers that allowed LTCM to become too large and leveraged; (9) regulators for each industry have generally continued to focus on individual firms and markets, the risks they face, the soundness of their practices, but they have failed to address interrelationships across each industry; (10) lack of authority over certain affiliates of securities and futures firms limits the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to identify the kind of systemic risk that LTCM posed; and (11) the President’s Working Group report recommended that Congress provide SEC and CFTC expanded authority to obtain and verify information from unregistered affiliates of broker-dealers and future commission merchants.” (U.S. General Accounting Office, Long-Term Capital Management: Regulators Need to Focus Greater Attention on Systemic Risk, Letter Report, Oct 29, 1999, GAO/GGD-00-3).

“By mid-1999, David Mullins, a former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Greg Hawkins told LTCM staff that they will not be part of the attempt by some of the original partners to start a new company and attempt to take back control of the fund. Other original partners, including Myron Scholes, had already announced their departure from LTCM. It leaves a core group of six original LTCM partners negotiating with the institutions that now control the hedge fund’s assets. The six are led by John Meriwether and are all former employees of Salomon Brothers, the investment bank now called Salomon Smith Barney. They also include Larry Hillibrand, and have been dubbed “Larry and the Leftovers” by LTCM staff.” (New York Times, Jan 29, 1999, p. C3).

But by November 1999, with the fund nearly repaid, Meriwether and five other founding members of LTCM were planning to launch a new hedge fund called JWM with between $ 300 and $500 million in assets. (The Guardian (London), Nov 5, 1999, p. 27).

“It shouldn’t take international financial regulators long to sort out the problems thrown up by the near-collapse of Long-Term Capital Management. The issues are devilishly complex - but those involved all seem to know each other. When a dozen large banks and investment houses got together this week to figure out how to handle hedge funds, who better to lead their deliberations than Steve Thieke of J.P. Morgan, and Gerald Corrigan of Goldman Sachs? Experienced hands, both. It should help that Thieke used to work for Corrigan when he was president of the New York Federal Reserve. Meanwhile, Bill McDonough, Corrigan’s successor in that post, is chairman of the Basle committee of banking supervisors, also grappling with the problem of how to control hedge fund exposures. The only face missing from the reunion is Ernie Patrikis, who left the New York Fed last year to join American International Group, the insurer. Still, with regulators trying to grapple with banking and insurance conglomerates, it can’t be long before he joins the party.” (Financial Times (London), Jan 8, 1999, p. 15).

“Bank regulators meeting in the Basle Committee, under the auspices of the BIS [Bank for International Settlements], as well as securities regulators in the International Organisation of Securities Commissioners (Iosco), have been looking at ways of avoiding a repeat of LTCM’s problems.” (Financial Times (London), April 14, 1999, p. 4).

Sources of information:

Roger Lowenstein, When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long Term Capital Management.

Sachs Invested in Mexico: The Fed and Financial Stability...http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/fed-cr.html
... but apparently Goldman Sachs was into Mexico very big time, $5.2 billion ... The Chairman of our Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, and the chairman of ...

Certainly all of them played some role in the financial meltdown. But theres a name missing on that list: China.

For years, the symbiotic relationship between China and the U.S. worked just fine.
As an exporter economy, the Chinese bought U.S. Treasuries to keep its currency depressed and exports cheap. Meanwhile, American consumers showed an endless appetite for inexpensive Chinese products.

It looked like a win-win situation. While U.S. depended on China for financing, the Chinese economy depended on American overconsumption. Beautiful scheme!

But this relationship had very ugly unintended consequences. Unfortunately, it took a complete collapse of the global financial market to expose the major flaws of that relationship.

So China decided to cut their own throats? Now Paulson makes sense to me. It was not an attempt to elect a dildo. It was a run on the bank. Perhaps it did happen on that day one. Go figure. People try to attribute meaning to why things happen and they often get it wrong. China was just acting in their own interest.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.